←back to thread

140 points ksec | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
simply-typed ◴[] No.41083880[source]
The fact IntelliSense and jump-to-source are supported at a very superficial level goes to show the heavy drawbacks of dynamic types.

Sorbet may fix things, but at that point, just use a language with more mature tooling around types, like Python or TypeScript.

Dynamic types offer dubious marginal benefits but bring tons of downsides. The demonstrations in this article reflect that.

replies(6): >>41083934 #>>41083947 #>>41084060 #>>41084088 #>>41084115 #>>41084491 #
pjm331 ◴[] No.41083947[source]
Or the fact that people continue to do a lot of development in these languages would suggest that the benefits are more than marginal, and the lack of a few editor features is not such a terrible hindrance.
replies(1): >>41085101 #
ht85 ◴[] No.41085101[source]
Strongly typed languages have a higher barrier of entry and require an engineering mindset. That's anecdotal but if I think of exceptionally competent people I've worked with on JS projects, all of them have spent time building and advocated for properly typed code bases.

The other camp "just hates it" because it "slows them down", as it seems they spend most of their time fighting the types but never get to the point where you get that huge return on investment.

replies(3): >>41085592 #>>41085773 #>>41090786 #
1. pjm331 ◴[] No.41090786[source]
> Strongly typed languages have a higher barrier of entry

Agreed

> the other camp "just hates it" because it "slows them down"

I’ve no doubt there are some that fall into this category, but not everyone, not by a long shot.